The study relied on a statistical technique called meta-analysis. Over 200 plus scientific journal articles were combined as the data set for the study. The article co-author with recognized expertise in meta-analysis, Ingram Olkin, applied for a grant from Council of Tobacco Research (CTR) in 1976.
CTR was part of the infamous Tobacco Institute, an industry group of cigarette manufacturers. Ingram was on the faculty of Stanford University at the time. The authors of the current study diminishing the value of organic foods are also from Stanford University, with Olkin listed as a professor emeritus.

Olkin applied to the CTR to conduct a project on the statistical methods used in the Framingham Heart Study, the landmark project linking cigarette smoking with increased risk of heart disease. From publicly available tobacco industry documents, we find this from cigarette manufacturer lawyers:

“I met with Dr. Olkin and Dr. Marvin Kastenbaum [Tobacco Institute Statistics Director] on December 17, 1975, .at which time we discussed Dr. Olkin’s interest in multivariate analysis statistical models. Dr. Olkin is well qualified and is very articulate. I learned, in visiting with Dr. Olkin, that he would like to examine the theoretical structure of the “multivariate logistic risk function.”

The Tobacco Documents describe Katzenbaum as knowledgeable of “the tobacco industry’s participation in the public disinformation regarding the health hazards of tobacco use …”

According to internal tobacco company documents from cigarette manufacturers, Olkin received a grant from CRT and submitted a final paper in 1979. The paper could not be found online.

Professor Olkin’s specialty, meta-analysis, was the research technique employed to generate the findings for the study designed to debunk the value of organic foods. Contrary to the conclusion that there’s little evidence of a difference in nutritional value, the article notes that “Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets.” The researchers say that they “did not identify clinically meaningful differences” in measures among adults. That’s a statistical inference. The study found “phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant.” Again, the statistical analysis negated a finding in favor of organic produce based on statistical analysis.

The researchers concluded::

“The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

Studies like the one out of Stanford are less about the quality of the research than they are about the headlines when mainstream media gets involved. In this case, the findings prop up conventional foods at the expense of organics by the mere mention of Stanford researchers claiming there’s no nutritional difference.

This minor article was picked up by media all over the country. No doubt, it raised questions for some who are currently buying organic foods and those who were considering making the switch from conventional to organic.

One response to “Organic Food Debunker was Tobacco Institute Researcher in 1976”

thanks so much for writing about this, Michael. Amazing the same guy involved in promoting cigs would promote chemical agriculture. OUTRAGEOUS

Those who eat organic food do so to avoid the chemicals and antibiotic resistant microbes, and/or to not buy into Industrial Agriculture. No one ever thought that organically produced food had more vitamins and minerals that chemically produced food — that’s what was so weird to me about the media hooplah.

mainstream media might as well have run a headline saying New Study Finds Chemically Treated Apples Just as Red as Organic Ones.

the study is that absurd to me. but then you found his bias (e.g. pesticides in adult urine from conventionally grown food vs. organic) … yeah, I’m not surprised the ciggie pusher would be caught lying.